Review History

All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 12th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 31st, 2018.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 8th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 9th, 2018.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Feb 9, 2018 · Academic Editor


Thank you for incorporating the suggested revisions.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jan 31, 2018 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please see the comments below from the two reviewers. Please incorporate them or address them. I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This manuscript is clearly written with simple appropriate language. The references are adequate throughout and the figures, raw data and structure are all reasonable.

I would not that in figure 2 there is no description for those data represented by the white bars

Experimental design

This research is field based and down from various sources on a farm level. Given the nature of the data used, there is an inherent limit to what how much actual experimental design and manipulation is possible. Within those confines, the authors did a commendable job of gathering their data. The methods for collecting insects etc. are quite sound and the ability to locate 20 farms and gain the relevant information from each makes for quite reasonable sample sizes.

Validity of the findings

The findings of this study are quite sound and reasonable given the data and analyses. The conclusions are sound and within the scope of those data collected. There is some reasonable speculation, and while this study is limited in its ability to provide mechanism, the speculation is aimed at these mechanisms which is appropriate.


Basic reporting


Experimental design

The paired design is implied in Table S1 but not clear in the Methods. Please clarify statistical design. See comments on the manuscript (attached).

L 74 - how were fields selected on each farm? Why were 2 omitted?
L 81 - how were the sites elected for yield determination?
L 83 - how was revenue for livestock grazing determined?
L 86 - Presumably numbers of indiv from all spp are mentioned. Clarify.
How many of each sp? Did 1 sp do more damage than another? Was crop damage due to pests assessed?
L 116-17 - how was the value of other products assessed?
L 118 - Extra cost only for seed or also for direct applications of insecticide?
L 123 - how many regen farmers received an organic premium? Show in T S1

Validity of the findings

T S2 - more explanation needed in order for table to stand alone. Stats related to T S2? Not referred to in text
Fig 2 - see comment bubbles on Fig 2. It's not clear to me what this shows. It appears that some costs are missing.

Additional comments

This type of systems analysis is required and appreciated.
Please address comments above in order to help readers understand how data were collected and analyzed.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.